KASTURI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

                          KASTURI AND ORS.                                  A
                                    v.
                         STATE OF HARYANA

                         NOVEMBER 12, 2002

                                                                            B
      [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ Y. PATIL: JJ.]


      land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 3 and 4---Compensation-Award
of-Governn1ent acquiring large area for development of residential and
commercial area-Award of compensation-Single Judge of High Court C
reducing compensation amount applying cut of 20% towards development
charges-Division Bench upholding the same--Justification of-Held: Acquired
area is a large area which though not developed but has potential value for
residentiai and commercial purposes-For development of this land expenditure
has to be incurred for various civic anienities and other development works-
Thus the cut of 20% is justified and tenable as against 113 normal deduction. D

     State Government acquired large area of land for development of
residential and commercial area. Land Acquisition Collector awarded
Rs.11.81 per sq. yard. Aggrieved claimants filed reference under Section
18 of the Act which were disposed of by awarding uniform rate of E
compensation@ Rs. 125 per square yard. Claimants as well as State then
filed first appeal. Claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation to
Rs. 500 per square yard while State sought for reduction of compensation
amount to Rs.11.81 per square yard. Single Judge applying cut of 20%
towards development charges reduced the amount of compensation to
Rs.79.98 per square yard. Division Bench upheld the order. Hence the F
present appeals.

       Appellants contended that applying cut of 20% on the amount of
compensation based on the market value arrived was neither justified nor
tenable; High Court was not right in reducing the rate Of compensation;
that HUDA made unjust enrichment by collecting more money from the           G
allottees after the compensation amount was enhanced by District Judge
and that neither State nor HUDA will be put to any loss as they have
collected money from the allottees; that appellants would suffer hardship
if they have to refund 20% of the compensation amount already received;
                                                                             H
                                   117
    118                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A and that the land in question is surrounded by developed areas and has a
    commercial and residential potentiality.

          Respondent-State conttnded that Single Judge of High Court
    considering the entire material placed before him objectively applied 20%
    cut on the rate of compensation and also followed the principles stated by
B   this Court in that regard which the Division Bench upheld and as such
    the impugned order does not call for any interference.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

C        HELD: 1.1. The cut of 20% on the amount of compensation for the
    acquired land applied by Single Judge as affirmed by Division Bench of
    High Court is not wrong or unsustainable. High Court applied cut of 20%
    as against the normal 1/3 deductioQ having regard to facts and
    circumstances of the case and was right and justified in doing so. (127-D)

D        1.2. It is well-settled that in respect of agricultural land or·
    und~veloped  land which has potential value for housing or commercial
  purposes, normally 1/3 amount of compensation has to be deducted out
  of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to
  certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure
E involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic
  amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or
  commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land
  may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making
  construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area
  all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may
F be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred
  in developing the area also varies. A claimant, who claims that his land is
  fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental
  purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it
  is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that area
G adjoining this land is developed area, is not enough particularly when the
  extent orthe acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land
  is abutting the main road in the developed area. (123-G-H; 124-A-C)

          1.3. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts
    the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is
H   required, needs laying of internal roads, draim1ge, sewer, water, electricity
                      KASTURI v.STATE OF HARY ANA                           119

lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where         A
there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, may
help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental
charges required may be less on that account. There may be various
factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the
cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be
in some cases it is more than 1/3 and in some cases less than 1/3. It must         B
be re1ne1nbered that there is difference between a developed area and an
area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that
an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto
make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a
building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in the       C
instant case, for development purpose. (124-C-FJ

      1.4. In the instant case, area acquired is a large area of about 84
acres though not developed but has potential value for residential and
commercial purposes. A small portion of the large tract was abutting the
main. road but was not fully developed having all facilities. Appellants did       D
not establish that the entire area acquired was fully developed having all
the facilities such as roads, drains, sewers, water, electricity lines and civic
amenities. In order to convert the land into plots for the purpose of
construction of residential and commercial buildings certain area was to
be earmarked for the above mentioned purposes in accordance with the               E
law governing the matter of creating layouts in addition to incurring of
expenditure for the development area. Hence the claim of appellants that
there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount
determined for the entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be the
acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and
commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of            F
by High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3 normal deduction.
                                                               [128-C-FJ

      1.5. There is no force in the contention that HUDA made unjust
enrichment by collecting more money from the allottees after the
compensation amount was enhanced by District Judge and that neither                G
State nor HUDA will be put to any loss as they have collected money from
the allottees. It is not the case where collection of any tax is involved to
bring in the theory of unjust enrichment. Once the proper amount of
compensation is finally determined, the land owners will be entitled only
to that amount. [128-G-H; 129-AJ                                                   H
    120                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special Tahsildar and Land
    Acquisition Officer, /lisakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, 119911 4
    sec 506, distinguished.
          Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, 11988) 2
    SCC 150 and Guizar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 11993) 4
B   SCC 245; K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (LAO) [1995) 5
    SCC 426; Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. V. T Velu and Ors.,
    [1996) 2 SCC 538; UP. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Anr.
    v. Katra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Ors., [1996) 3 SCC 124 and U.P.
    Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr., [1998) 2 SCC 467,
C   referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7139 of
    2001.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2000 of the Punjab and
D   Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 431 of 2000.

                                       WITH
         C.A. Nos. 7140, 7143, 7142, 7141, 7171, 7145-67, 7144, 7168, 8206/
    2001, SLP (C) Nos. 1771112001, 2107-08, 2111-2112, 2113-2114/2002 &
E   C.A. Nos. 5777, 5610/2002 & SLP(C) Nos. 17717, 13563, 21250/2001 and
    2109-2110/2002.

         Anoop G. Chaudhary, S.B. Sanyal, Mahendra Anand, K.K. Mohan,
    Prem Malhotra, B.S. Mor, S.M. Hooda for M.S. Dahiya, Jagat Singh,
    Tarkeshwar Nath for K.K. Rai, Ugra Shankar Prasad (NP), Aditya Kr.
F   Chaudhary, Neeraj Kr. Jain and Ms. Hema Sahu for J.P. Dhanda for the
    appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               I,


            SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL J. Since common question of law arises for
G consideration on similar facts, these appeals and special leave petitions are
    disposed of by this judgment.

          A large area of 84.23 acres of land was acquired by the State of Haryana
    for development of residential and commercial area of Sector 13 and 23 in
H   Bhiwani. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
         KASTURI v.STATE OF HARYANA [SHIV ARAI V. PATIL.I.]                  J 21


Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 4th June, 1986 under Section          A
6, declaration was made on 15.4.1987 and two awards were passed covering
the entire area on 10.11.1987 and 31.3.1988 awarding a sum of Rs. 57,500
per acre and Rs. 55,200 per acre respectively. The claimants, not being satisfied
with the award-amount, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In all,
 151 references were made; the learned District Judge disposed of all these         B
references by awarding uniform rate of compensation@ Rs. 125 per square
yard as against Rs. 11.81 paise per square yard awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector. In all, 251 Regular First Appeals were filed in the
High Court by the claimants as well as the State of Haryana against the
judgment of the Reference Court. In the said appeals, claimants prayed for
enhancement of compensation to Rs. 500 per square yard while the State              C
sought for reduction of the compensation amount to Rs.11.81 per square yard
as awarded by the Collector. The learned Single Judge, having reviewed and
re-appreciated the entire evidence, keeping in view the contention of the
parties, for the reasons stated in the judgment, reduced the amount of
compensation to Rs.79.98 per square yard. In doing so, the learned Single
Judge applied cut of 20% towards development charges. In the result, the            D
learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeals filed by the State and dismissed
the appeals filed by the claimants. The claimants, aggrieved by the order of
the learned Single Judge, filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division
Bench of the High Cou;t. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, affinning
the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, these appeals are        E
filed by the claimants.

       Learned counsel representing the appellants strongly contended that
applying cut of 20% on the rate of compensation arrived at on the basis of
the sale instances is neither justified nor tenabl~; the High Court was not right
in reducing the rate of compensation from Rs. 125 per square yard to Rs.79.98       F
per square yard; the HUDA in pursuance of the award of the District Judge
raised the rate of allotment of the land to Rs. 536 per square yard as a result
of which total rate of allotment of land worked out to more than Rs. 1100 per
square yard, and as such there was no loss to the State or the HUDA so as
to ask the appellant to pay back 20% of the amount of compensation already          G
received; according to the learned counsel, if refund is to be made by the
appellants, it amounts to unjust enrichment for the HUDA which has already
received more money by way of increase in the rate of land from the allottees.
The learned counsel finally submitted that having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, if the appellants have to make refund now, of the
20% of the compensation amount already received by them, it would result            H
    122                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   in great hardship to them.                                                         .
                                                                                       -


          Opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the
    learned counsel for the respondent-State argued supporting and justifying the
    impugned judgment, stating that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
    did consider the entire material placed before him objectively and has applied
B   20% cut on the rate of compensation determined following the principles
    stated by this Court in that regard. He submitted that the judgment of the
    learned Single Judge is based on the finding of _facts, which the Division
    Bench of the High Court has affirmed and as such the impugned order does
    not call for any interference at the hands o,· this Court.
c          The emphasis and thrust of the argument made on behalf of the appellants
    was that the cut of 20% on the amount of compensation· was not at all
    justified having regard to the fact that the acquired land was in a fully
    developed area.

D         The learned Single Judge, dealing with the question of location and
    potentiality of the acquired land, has observed that there is really not much
    dispute between the parties in that regard; documents clearly show that the
    land in question is adjacent to the land already acquired for developing Sectors
    13 and 23; on one side of the acquired land, there is a city railway station
    while on the other, there is 100 ft. wide road; there is overwhelming
E   documentary evidence to show that the land in question is surrounded by
    developed areas and the land has a commercial and residential potentiality.
    The learned counsel for the appellants, pointing out to these observations
    urged thatthere was no need to apply any cut on the amount of compensation
    based on the market value. In support of this submission, they heavily relied
F   on the decision of this Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special
    Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality,
    Visakhapatnam, [1991] 4 SCC 506. The learned Single Judge, after considering
    evidence placed reliance on Exbt. P-7 as the very foundation for giving the
    claimants amount of compensation for the acquired land. The Division Bench
    of the High Court in the impugned judgment noticed that the learned Single
G   Judge adopted the cut of 20% on the cumulative effect of various factors
    enumerated in the judgment. Inter alia, on the ground that Exbt. P. 7 relates
    to sale transaction between two individuals in respect of plot of 3 canals
    (nearly 1800 square yards) located on the main road itself with 100 feet wide
    face touching the main road. It has greater commercial potential value in
H   comparison to other area and it would be difficult to place it at par with the
         KASTURI v.STATE OF HARYANA [SHI VARA.IV. PATIL. J.]               123

land at considerable distance from the main road. Whereas the land acquired A
is a large area of 84 acres, \Vhich has been acquired for development of
residential and commercial areas of Sectors 13 and 23 in Bhhvani. Fu1ther,
the sale instance Exbt. P-7 is of the land after the same had been developed;
whereas in respect of the land in question, the State has to carry out and incur
heavy expenditure for developing it. After noticing the observations made in B
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench concurred with
the findings recorded therein and upheld the 20% cut applied by the learned
Single Judge on the compensation amount payable to the claimants. The
learned Single Judge had taken into consideration yet another ground that the
value of the land of claimants have been enhanced considerably because of
the activities carried out by the State or its instrumentalities; but for the C
development of the project by the Haryana Urban Development Authority
(HUDA), the prices of the acquired land would not have shot up that high as
shown in Exbt. P- 7. The land for the development of the project was acquired
by the State on earlier occasions in the year 1974, and thereafter in 1985. The
State has to carry out and incur heavy expenditure for developing the land
which has now been acquired and as such, there was justification to apply D
20% cut. The learned Single Judge following the earlier decisions of this
Court and of the same High Court, determined the market value of the acquired
land having regard to the evidence placed on record and applied 20% cut in
arriving at the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants.
                                                                                  E
      It is not debated that sale transaction covered by Exbt. P-7 relates to a
small plot and the land in question acquired is about 84 acre. This land
comprising of large area is not developed although it has potential value for
residential and commercial purposes. In order to develop this land, roads
were to be laid, provisions for drainage was to be made and certain area was
to be earmarked for other civic amenities. Thus, after leaving the area in the    F
land required for the purposes mentioned above, plots were to be made for
residential and commercial purposes by incurring expenditure for other
developmental works, such as providing electricity, water, etc. The acquired
land is not small plot located in such a way that no other development was
required at all and it could be utilized as it is as a developed building site.   G
It is well-settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land
which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally l /
3 amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of
compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations
depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for
development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to          H
    124                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A develop the land so as to make the plots for the residential or commercial
    purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft
    or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction;
    may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but
    that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep
    ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the
B   area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and
    nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show
    on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. fn the
    absence of such evidence, merely saying that area adjoining his land is
    developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired
C   land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road
    in the developed area, does not give the land character of a developed area.
    In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main
    road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs
    laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing
    civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain
D   advantages by virtue of the developed area around, may help in reducing the
    percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may
    be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have
    to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of
    compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is
E   more than 113 and in some cases less than 113. It must be remembered that
    there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential
    value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or
    adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in
    the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly
    when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.
F
          This Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector,            J

    Varanasi, [1988] 2 SCC 150 referring to earlier decisions has held that prices
    fetched for small plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land
    as the two are not comparable properties. Para 12 of the said judgment reads:

G          "It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form
           safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not
           comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v: B.C. Dutta,
           [1972] 4 SCC 236; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land
           Acquisition), Hyderabad, [1975] 2 SCR 184; Padma Uppal v. State
H          of Punjab, [1977] I SCR 329; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land
         KASTURI v.STATE OF HARYANA [SHIV ARAI V. PATIL, J.]                125

       Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, [1984] 2 SCR 900. The principle             A
       that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not
       a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understoOct in
       its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for
       small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large
       extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued          B
       does not admit of and. is ripe for use for building purposes; that
       building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling
       propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of
       hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing
       such small laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable
       small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would       C
       be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of
       land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities;
       expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains,
       sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for
       the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on
       the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Ka/ha v. Amritsar            D
       Improvement Trust, [1982] I SCC 419, this Court indicated that
       deductions for land required for roads and other developmental
       expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the
       prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case
       of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the 'retail' price   E
       of the land the latter the 'wholesale' price."

      In Guizar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., [ 1993] 4 SCC
245, referring to the case of Administrator of West Bengal (supra) and other
cases, this Court upheld the deduction of 1/3 of the undeveloped land towards
developmental charges. In that case, 90 acres ofundeveloped land was acquired       F
which required development by laying road, parks, drainage, lighting and
other civic amenities. It may also be noted that in the said judgment, this
Court distinguished the case of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra) on which the
appellants strongly relied.

      Yet again in K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO),           G
[ 1995] 5 SCC 426,. this Court reiterated that when genuine and reliable sale
deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same
will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land.
Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive .at a just and fair market value
of large tracts of land. Again, in this case also Bhagwathula Samanna (supra)       H
     126                       S.UPREME.COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A was distinguished while upholding the deduction as to developmental charges.
           This Court again in Special land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. VT
     Velu and Ors., [1996] 2 SCC 538 in a similar situation as in the case on hand
     has held that at least I /3 of the land acquired is to be set apart for road
     purpose, developmental purpose and other civic amenities. It is also observed,
B    "the mere fact that there is a connecting road to the lands, by itself is not
     a correct principle of law in refusing to deduct towards developmental
     charges".

                                                                (emphasis supplied)
c           In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Anr. v. Kalra
      Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow and Ors., Tl 996] 3 SCC 124 this Court has
    · stated thus:-

            "Therefore, it should be determined only on the basis of yardage. If
D           the principle of detennination of compensation on yardage basis i~
            adopted, it is equally settled law that at least 1/3rd of the land required
            should be deducted towards developmental purposes, namely,
            providing roads, electricity, drainage facilities and other betterment
            development."

E          A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, in similar circumstances
     in UP. Avas Eva~n Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr., [199~] 2 SCC
     467 upheld the deduction of 1/3 of the price towards cost of development for
     the housing scheme involving construction of roads and other amenities after
     agreeing with the earlier decisions of this Court even after referring to the
F · case of Bhagwathula Samanna aforementioned. ln the said judgment, it is
     observed that "The High-Court has also held that the exemplar submitted by
   . the Parishad cou.ld hot be accepted for the reason that therein it was
     categorically. provided that. the purchaser would take the risk of statutory
     prohibitions, if any, on the transfer and that the vendor would not be
     responsible and that for covering the risk, the purchaser will normally demand
G redm;:tion in the rate. Referring to the exemplars produced by the la11downers
     the High Court observed that in respect of land covered in most of the
     exemplars· no evidence of any deficiency had been brought to its notice. The
     High Court has pointed out that admittedly, the acquired land was not
    developed and it may only have the potentiality of development to be used
H .as building sites and while facilities for drainage, electricity supply, wate1
         KASTUR!v.STATEOFHARYANA [SHIVARAJV.PATILJ.]                       127

supply and pucca road are available in those developed areas, the land which      A
is acquired measuring more than .200 acres does not have such advantages.
The High Court was however, of the view that as the acquired land is within
the municipal limits and is surrounded by developed area with l:tuildings and
pucca roads and other facilities and has. the advantage of road passing by the
side, it has potentiality of developing though it cannot be treated to have       B
similar advantages as the land in the developed areas. The High Court has
also taken note of the fact that the entire acquired area was used for the
purpo>e of agriculture even in 1983 when the surrounding areas had already
developed. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court held
that the rates ~vailable for land in developed area could not be adopted for
determination of market value of the acquired land though they can be used        C
for guidance to determine the market value by taking note of other
circumstances as available on record."

      On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various
decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of 20%
adopted by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench in the      D
impugned judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us having regard
to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut of
20% as against the normal 1/3 deduction. We find that the High Court was
right a~d justified in doing so.
                                        ,   .                                     E
      The decision of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra) does not help the
appellants as the said decision was rendered on the facts of that case. As
already noticed above, the said decision was referred to in earlier decisions
of this Court and distinguished. That was a case of a fully developed land
having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. In the context
of the facts of that ·case, in para I I, it is stated thus:-                      F

       "The principle of deduction in the fand value covered by the
       comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value
       of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to
       consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered      G
       under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the
       vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all
       amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area
       within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building
       purposes and have in ·us 1licinity roads, drainage, electricity,
       communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the         H
    128                     ·   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A           reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified "   •'

                                                                (emphasis supplied)

           In that case deduction was not given on the ground that even in the vast
    area there may be land, which is fully developed having all amenities and
B   situated in an advantageous position; if smaller area within the large tract is
    already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity
    roads, drainage, electricity, communication, etc., then the principle of deduction
    simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be
    justified.

C          In the present case the situation is entirely different. The area acquired
     is not a small area; it was not developed; may be it had some advantages; a
    small portion of the large tract was abutting the main road; it was also not
    the case that any smaller area within the large tract of land acquired was fully
    developed having all facilities as in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra).
D   The appell!lnts herein did not establish that the entire area of 84 acres of land
    acquired was fully developed having all the facilities such as roads, drains,
    sewers, water, electricity lines and civic amenities. In order to convert the
    land into plots for the purpose -of construction of residential and commercial
    buildings certain area was to be earmarked for the above mentioned purposes
    in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating layouts in
E   addition to incurring of expenditure for the development area. Hence the
    claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the
    compensation amount determined for tl)e entire area acquired is unsustainable.
    May be the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and
    commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by
F   the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 113 normal dedu.ction.

           We do not find any·force in the contention that the HUDA has made
    unjust enrichment by collecting more money froi;n the allottees after the
    compensation amount was enhanced by the .District Judge and that neither
    the.State nor the BUDA will be put to any loss as they have collected money
G   from the allottees. It is not the case where collection of any tax is involved
    to bring in the theory of unjust enrichment. Be that as it may, we are not
    concerned in these cases as to what happened between the HUDA and the
    allottees. The question for consideration is as to the determination of amount
    of compensation for the acquired land. Once the proper amount of
H   compensation is finally determined, the land owners will be entitled only to
             KASTURI v.STATE OF HARYANA [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL. J.j                 129
    that a1nount.                                                                      A
         Having regard to all these aspects, we find no merit in these appeal':\.
    Hence. the appeals as well as the special leave petitions are dismissed. Parties
    to bear their own costs.

    N.J .                                            Appeals/Petitions dismis;ed.



•